That couldn't have something to do with the fact that the initial programmer reference was just released a week ago, the extremely few thus-far-released tools for HSA are still in beta, and -most importantly- fully HSA-enabled hardware hasn't even been released yet, could it?

That wasn't really the point. The point was that for the mainstream selling parts based on their HSA capabilities is almost entirely pointless at this point in time.

Not saying they can't be utilized in the future but it's a bit like devs adopting more cores, it's going to take a seriously long time.

Well after HD5200 and the i7 chip accompanying it launched AMD is yet again playing catch up with intel when it comes to performance. And the perf gap isn't small either, HD5200 completely and clearly beats trinity and richland parts.

Of course it's more expensive than AMD's APUs but it's also much better. And AMD can market their chips with the 3 letters "HSA". But I've yet to see a mainstream application where HSA is utilized.

Intel HD 5200 Iris Pro is ridiculously expensive product, and actually does not have any proper place in any market segment.BGA version i7 4770R with HD 5200 has a cost of nearly $400 dolars, or ideal 65W TDP processor for a HTPC in Mini-ITX motherboard right?

As for the relationship between price = graphics performance, HD 5200 Iris Pro on this comparison looks really horor bad no dubt.

- Desktop i7 4770K, 3,5 ghz CPU and HD 4600, 330 dolars

- BGA i7 4770R, 3.2ghz CPU and HD 5200, 390 dolars

Richland APU has no problems with Intel competition, when it comes to GPU prise=performance and that is most important. Edited by Asterox - 6/6/13 at 6:36am

Assuming 31.77% faster in games is a tiny bit better. (average from Anand's review that was filled with gaming evolved titles)

And assuming we don't take into account the fact that you're comparing a 55W TPD CPU against a 100W TDP one.

And I always see people complaining about drivers but I've yet to see any proof with the new Iris chips.

So yes, the AMD parts are now slower and less power efficient. They're again left with price/perf as always.

Could you build me a desktop with an Iris chip? Oh wait, for a slightly larger budget, I could get a Sandy Bridge i3 with a dedicated GPU to blow the Iris out of the water.

Also, because the GTX Titan beats the Radeon 7970 or GTX 680/780 in raw performance, the 7970 and 680/780 are complete crap, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alatar

But I've yet to see a mainstream application where HSA is utilized.

PS4 and Xbox One. Any games ported from either consoles that uses HSA (if the developer finds the octo-core 1.6 GHz Jaguar CPU too weak), will work on Kaveri. Now the games will also work on other CPUs, but HSA will be limited to AMD's APUs until they figure out how to get it to work between the FX Excavator and Radeon 10000.

Nividia is still going to stick with CUDA/PhysX, and already has a monopoly on the scientific market.

Intel is pushing their own GPU computation stuff, but has a lot to catch up.Edited by A Bad Day - 6/6/13 at 6:17am

That wasn't really the point. The point was that for the mainstream selling parts based on their HSA capabilities is almost entirely pointless at this point in time.

Not saying they can't be utilized in the future but it's a bit like devs adopting more cores, it's going to take a seriously long time.

At least it is reasonable that AMD will push HSA on the gaming side with PS4 and XBone developers. So mainly new games that are coming.
Also AMD is not alone there, there are huge names behind HSA Samsung and ARM are MUCH bigger then AMD and they are pushing that as well.

So AMD will most likely try to do what intel is doing to them in the last two decades with there monopolistic biased compiler .. this is no fair fight m8s.

If Lisa Su is to be believed, software (at least games) are already being developed to take advantage of HSA, thanks to the next-gen consoles.

The problem being that consoles are still going to use different APIs than PCs, have different memory infrastructure an so on...

And of course, software being developed =/= software ready for use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asterox

Intel HD 5200 Iris Pro is ridiculously expensive product, and actually does not have any proper place in any market segment.BGA version i7 4770R with HD 5200 has a cost of nearly $400 dolars, or ideal 65W TDP processor for a HTPC in Mini-ITX motherboard right?

As for the relationship between price = graphics performance, HD 5200 Iris Pro on this comparison looks really horor bad no dubt.

- Desktop i7 4770K, 3,5 ghz CPU and HD 4600, 330 dolars

- BGA i7 4770R, 3.2ghz CPU and HD 5200, 390 dolars

Richland APU has no problems with Intel competition, when it comes to GPU prise=performance and that is most important.

I don't understand the point you're making? Since the frequency of the CPU is lower than the desktop version it's a fail? The chips are entirely different, the 4770K has HD4600, not HD5200.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Bad Day

Could you build me a desktop with an Iris chip? Oh wait, for a slightly larger budget, I could get a Sandy Bridge i3 with a dedicated GPU to blow the Iris out of the water.

Obviously the chips aren't meant for enthusiasts that build their own machines and aren't meant for normal desktop use.

Let me know when you can get a SB dual core and a GT 650 in a 55W power envelope.

Quote:

Also, because the GTX Titan beats the Radeon 7970 or GTX 680/780 in raw performance, the 7970 and 680/780 are complete crap, right?

Of course not, but it means that the 680/7970/780 are competing with price/perf, instead of pure perf, which is exactly what I said about the APUs. And with APUs and the Iris pro it's also about fitting into a certain power envelope. Desktops aren't the big deal anymore.

Quote:

PS4 and Xbox One. Any games ported from either consoles that uses HSA (if the developer finds the octo-core 1.6 GHz Jaguar CPU too weak), will work on Kaveri. Now the games will also work on other CPUs, but HSA will be limited to AMD's APUs until they figure out how to get it to work between the FX Excavator and Radeon 10000.

It's not this straight forward. Even for PCs that do have HSA capability they will have different memory architectures than the consoles, will have to work through different APIs and there will be almost countless combinations of different hardware for the devs to account for.

Quote:

Nividia is still going to stick with CUDA/PhysX, and already has a monopoly on the scientific market.

Intel is pushing their own GPU computation stuff, but has a lot to catch up.

Intel is just pushing x86 with XeonPhi for the HPC market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Particle

The consequence of this line of reasoning is that any new technology or feature shouldn't be advertised as exciting until it is already widely adopted and utilized. That is nonsense.

I never said they shouldn't advertise it I just said that it's utterly useless for the consumer at this point in time.Edited by Alatar - 6/6/13 at 8:26am

Assuming 31.77% faster in games is a tiny bit better. (average from Anand's review that was filled with gaming evolved titles)

And assuming we don't take into account the fact that you're comparing a 55W TPD CPU against a 100W TDP one.

And I always see people complaining about drivers but I've yet to see any proof with the new Iris chips.

So yes, the AMD parts are now slower and less power efficient. They're again left with price/perf as always.

Too bad Iris pro is only offered on MOBILE Core i7's and the BGA 4770R. So your "55W vs 100W" is a completely ridiculous comparison. Not to mention the price point of Iris Pro and the 8670D are at COMPLETELY different price points. A BGA 4770R + Board is likely going to cost you upwards of $400, meanwhile an A10-6800K + board can cost you as little as $190.

On the desktop side, Richland absolutely stomps on the HD4600 graphics offered on socket based desktop parts. A $140 A10-6800K will destroy the graphics offered on a $160 Core i3 and compete with it in terms of CPU capabilities. Considering Kevari is launching in 2013 and expected to have 512 GCN Stream processors with ...it's going to make Iris pro even less relevant.

The problem with Intel's graphics implementation is they only offer the best integrated solution on platforms that likely have dedicated video cards. For example, all the currently available laptops with mobile Core i7 haswell parts with Iris Pro have GTX 765M's in them. So what's the point??? Meanwhile we're going to see Core i3's and Core i5's with no dedicated cards and lesser integrated graphics capabilities.

Intel releases Haswell for desktop

Requires new motherboard (New socket)

Haswell processors yield less than a 5% performance increase

Graphics capabilities on desktop parts increase 50% at most

AMD releases Richland for desktop

Uses same socket design (Allows you to keep your motherboard)

Yields 5%-10% graphics and processing performance increase

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alatar

I don't understand the point you're making? Since the frequency of the CPU is lower than the desktop version it's a fail? The chips are entirely different, the 4770K has HD4600, not HD5200.
Obviously the chips aren't meant for enthusiasts that build their own machines and aren't meant for normal desktop use.

That's EXACTLY THE POINT. The 5200 Iris Pro is only available on TWO of Intels $400+ platforms. Two EXPENSIVE platforms. Two EXPENSIVE, BGA BASED platforms. SELECT MOBILE CORE I7'S, ONE SINGLE BGA-BASED DESKTOP i7. Hence Iris Pro is essentially irrelevant and has absolutely no logical reason to be compared with AMD's APU lineup.Edited by M3T4LM4N222 - 6/6/13 at 8:38am

Why are we even talking about integrated graphics on desktops? The market for that is almost insignificant compared to mobile devices.

What's the point of striving for SOCs and low TDP if it isn't about mobile devices?

For the 99.99% that buy these chips the Iris pro part being BGA will not matter one bit. It wont for me either if I ever end up buying one. I have absolutely zero reason to build an APU based machine myself. If I need a htpc I will put a discrete card in it because I'll want the extra power, not power efficiency.